‘Why polyploidy is rarer in animals than in plants’: myths and mechanisms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although polyploidy has been involved in speciation in both animals and plants, the general perception is often that it is too rare to have been a significant factor in animal evolution and its role in plant diversification has been questioned. These views have resulted in a bias towards explanations for what deters polyploidy, rather than the somewhat more interesting question of the mechanisms by which polyploidy arises and becomes established in both plants and animals. The evidence for and against some of the traditional views on polyploidy is reviewed, with an attempt to synthesize factors promoting evolution through genome duplication in both groups. It is predicted that polyploidy should be more common in temperate than in tropical breeders because environmental fluctuations may promote unreduced gamete formation, it should be most common in organisms with sufficient numbers of gametes that random meiotic problems can be overcome, and it should be more frequent when mechanisms to promote assortative mating are a direct byproduct of genome duplication.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it